Enough is enough — EAT finds ‘unmanageable’ employee was not dismissed for whistleblowing
The claimant in Panayiotou v Kernagahn, a policeman, was subjected to a series of detriments and was ultimately dismissed by his employer for having an incompatible business interest. During the course of his employment, he made a number of protected whistleblowing disclosures about the attitude of some officers to racial issues and to victims of abuse. He contended that the fact that he had made those disclosures was the reason, or the principal reason, for his dismissal.
The tribunal did express the view that the claimant had not been fairly treated over the years leading up to his dismissal. But the issue was not one of straightforward unfair dismissal; the question was whether he had been subjected to detriment as a result of making protected disclosures…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump